Revision as of 17:06, 2 February 2009

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Reports

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

Special:Contributions/91.130.91.84 reported by User:THF

• Page: Srinivasa Ramanujan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 91.130.91.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Will not discuss civilly or respond to evidence that his idiosyncratic edits are improper. Appears to be POV-pushing a separatist agenda. Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#.22Indian.22
• Has started edit-warring at Adi Shankara, , without explaining deletions.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Administrative Abuse

Mshake3 reported by Truco (Result: prot)

• Page: List of WWE pay-per-view events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mshake3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This case is a bit unique. Mshake3 is a great user who contributes to Misplaced Pages with marvelous images of wrestling events. However, as of late he has been disruptive with edit warring causing the above article to be fully protected. The case is that he believes that because WWE.com (on the middle right) has an upcoming calender that states WWE One Night Stand has been changed by WWE to WWE Extreme Rules, however, WWE has not formally announced that this name change has occurred. Last year WWE Vengeance was to be changed to WWE Night of Champions, however, we waited until WWE posted a direct link to the ticket and promotional information here. Originally, the edit warring began on the WWE One Night Stand article, which Mshake reverted 3 times. This caused a full protection. As a result, WP:PW began to discuss this at WT:PW#One Night Stand, but Mshake did not want to discuss and he began to change the name of the article at the List of WWE pay-per-view events. There he reverted 4 times, and avoided the discussion at WT:PW. In addition, he began to change the name of the article in an infobox here. He was warned by User:TJ Spyke for adding original research here, and then for 3RR at the link I placed above. He, however, removed those warnings. It would help if he was given "time off" to avoid the disruption he has added.TRUCO 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Time off to avoid the disruption" sounds like "cool down block" which are not allowed. iMatthew // talk // 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like that, I meant that he needs to have time off so the edit war can stop.--TRUCO 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The pages can't be full protected instead? iMatthew // talk // 03:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They already have, but he finds other ways to avoid the discussion and add his own input to related pages like at Judgment Day (2009).--TRUCO 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake's disruptions have already led to 2 articles being fully protected (WWE One Night Stand and List of WWE pay-per-view events). He has disrupted multiple other pages that link to those two and based on his comments at WT:PW I tend to believe he will continue his actions once those pages are unprotected. He is ignoring the consensus (which is to leave the current name for now). He shouldn't get a long term block, but has is just being a disruption to Misplaced Pages right now and not being the constructive editor he has been in the past. TJ Spyke 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I know that he passed 3RR, but you were all edit warring. You should have stopped at the first or second revert and contacted an un-involved administrator for input. By continuing, you were all involved in the edit war. iMatthew // talk // 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We were just enforcing consensus, which is why I seeked protection for both articles so we would stop the edit warring.--TRUCO 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Both sides need to take a huge step back. The change to a new name is almost definite, and it has been reported by a reliable source (Dave Meltzer). The WrestleMania example used by those who don't support MShake3's version is not a good comparison, as it deals with a completely separate issue. It also wouldn't make sense for WWE to give One Night Stand the same subtitle for two years in a row, so the change seems like a sure thing. There hasn't been a press release yet, however. So both sides are right in their own ways. Punishing a valuable contributor like MShake3, however, would not help anything. I suggest that this report be withdrawn and that everyone realize that this is about as trivial as it gets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Even Mshake has said he can't find where WWE ever said last years ONS was called "One Night Stand: Extreme Rules". The official site only calls it One Night Stand and the only place they mention "Extreme Rules" is on the DVD cover. This leads me to believe it was just another tagline. If this was just one article, I would agree with you. But this has spread to multiple articles. TJ Spyke 17:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2009-01-28T07:46:45 PeterSymonds (Talk | contribs | block) m (13,191 bytes) (Changed protection level for "List of WWE pay-per-view events": Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) (expires 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, when I make two consecutive edits to an article, that doesn't mean it's two separate reverts, as you're suggesting. Anyway, I will continue to make these changes because A) I'm not violating any policy (it's not speculation or original research if I'm following the official, reliable sources (this all came from a change on the comany's official website, I might add.)) and B: as stated in the conscous policy, an agreement of a few people can't override the overall policies, and the overall policies state if the source is reliable (and it is, since it's used for so many articles in the project's scope.), then it should be added. Mshake3 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I will continue to make these changes - you do realise this classes as edit-warring, which could lead to a block? D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help it if those reverting against me are wrong. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that the name is going to be changed, but they just want something official is a specific, arbitrary way. Mshake3 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:70.72.221.214/User:GradiationScheme reported by User:Mitsube (Result:24 hours, warning for reporter)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Comparative religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:46, 27 January 2009

1. 01:14, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "restore material vandalized by 'Anishshah19'")
2. 18:51, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - stop vandalizing, how is my material POV?")
3. 22:27, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - what exactly is propaganda?? Write it in Discussion")
4. 00:51, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - these sources are perfectly fine. dont make up stuff")

The user has also violated 3RR on two other articles:

• Three-revert rule violation on

Asceticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:50, 27 January 2009

1. 01:12, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "read Discussion")
2. 18:58, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "read Discussion before vandalizing")
3. 22:28, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - Go to discussion")
4. 00:42, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - stop vandalizing already, this is just going to continue")

• Three-revert rule violation on

Indian religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:51, 27 January 2009

1. 01:11, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "stop deleting referenced material you vandal")
2. 19:01, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - What exactly is POV about my material? (which is completely sourced by the way)")
3. 22:35, 29 January 2009 (edit summary: "rv - Complete Idiot's Guide text has been removed, but the rest remain (otherwise I'll bring a lot more sources!)")
4. 00:40, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "revert back to full version - wikipedia does not have a single policy against my sources. you are just pushing the jealous Ambedkar agenda")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of warning: here

Warned both logged-in and logged-out versions. It is clear from the edit summaries at Indian religions that the two are the same. The user has insisted on the use of various The Complete Idiot's Guide to ... for fine points of comparative religion. He also has refused to justify the use of his source With respect to sex on the talk page of Asceticism, where he has altered properly sourced material. The user has been edit-warring with multiple established users for some time. He may be a sock of the banned User:Maleabroad according to User:Anishshah19, I think that user was banned before I started editing.

In general the user removes or alters properly sourced material and copy-pastes nonsense from some other website, probably a Hindu wiki of some kind, which is itself sourced to either non-academic books on religion or books on unrelated topics that mention religion in passing. He also insists on using the discussion page, but ignores requests and points made there. Mitsube (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to block the IP for 24 hours for edit warring. I also wish to address the reporter here: You, too, are edit warring. Unlike the IP in question, you haven't violated 3RR, nor are you carrying on a one-person war. Still, if you keep reverting as much as you have, you may find yourself blocked in the future. Just a reminder. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Later update: YellowMonkey has confirmed that 70.72.221.214 (talk · contribs) and User:GradiationScheme are socks of Maleabroad and has issued longer blocks to both editors. I join Heimstern in recommending caution, even when dealing with edit warriors. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, until you're ready to make a solid case it's a banned user, it doesn't work to claim the exception clause for reverting. Still, I do wish to note for the record that, as it turns out, Mitsube was justified in his reverting, even though more caution might have been advisable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Erik Baas reported by 68.90.45.10 (Result: 24h)

• Pages: HO scale, H0 scale
• User: Erik Baas

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: coming soon!

Summary: Erik Baas moved the HO scale page to H0 scale with minimal discussion sometime last summer. Since then, consensus on the talk page (Talk:H0_scale) has overwhelmingly favored returning the article to HO scale. I have done this and then continued to refine and revise the article, adding new content. Erik Baas has reverted all of my edits and accused me of vandalism (see: Talk:HO_scale, even threatening to block me from Misplaced Pages. 68.90.45.10 (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear there's a violation here. For one thing, the first oldid (note, please provide diffs next time instead) is three days ago, and secondly, the fourth revert is missing. I don't see any need for action here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The title has been H0 scale (Hzero) for a much longer time; I undid similar changes by 68.238.187.116 and Filmteknik earlier. A quote from the article itself: "The name is derived from the fact that its 1:87 scale is approximately half that of 0 (zero) scale, hence H0." - Erik Baas (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss article content; keep that on the article's talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The 4th revert turned up. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys reported by Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result:no vio)

• Page: Paul Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mervyn Emrys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:02:50, 30 January 2009
• 2nd revert:03:16, 30 January 2009
• 3rd revert:03:48, 30 January 2009

Summary:3rd revert done after the user was told here done after being warned at 03:29, 30 January 2009 and the user responds he that he will continue to do so and after replying at 03:45, 30 January 2009 and does the 3rd revert at just a few minutes after replying to the other user.The user was clearly warned and did the 3rd revert knowingly .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No vio; three reverts is not a 3RR vio; you need four for that. No reason I see to apply an edit warring block for only three in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by L0b0t (talk) (Result: both warned)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Eric Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 07:30, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; OK, since he was a physicist but his pubs were also essentially in cosmology, the simpler form is still better. (TW)")
2. 15:56, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; Edit made for purely personal attack reason does not address the point. (TW)")
3. 16:08, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by L0b0t; My edit on your talk page suggested that you AGF, and explained the reasoning; you ignored it. (TW)")
4. 16:09, 30 January 2009 (edit summary: "/* The Big Bang Never Happened */ physical cosmologists is perhaps a better inclusive category")

—L0b0t (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Contiguous edits count as one. Your edit summaries verge on PA, e.g. ; please be more cautious and civil. You are both edit warring, over what appears to be trivia, and both risk being blocked for it. DL gets credit for discussing on talk; L0 a demerit for the opposite William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

205.240.70.10 reported by Darwin's Bulldog (Result: no vio / stale)

• Page: Death Magnetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 205.240.70.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

In regards to the U.S. sales figures of Metallica's latest album, Death Magnetic, to date, the most recent reliable figure has been 1,570,000 copies, reported by Billboard on December 31, 2008. (See: "Lil Wayne Notches Top-Selling Album of 2008".) I have assumed good faith with this user, as he has been updating the sales figure without reference, but his edits have been going on for about a month now, and its obvious that he's either guessing or using very unreliable sources for reference, as the figures he'll post will change and numbers will fluctuate high and low from week to week. (For example, he put over 1.6 million a few weeks ago, and his most recent edit was 1,599,000.) Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

.10 has precisely one revert, which you've reverted. Why are you bringing this here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been going on for over a month, and has been reverted more than once (see references listed above). This was brought here to resolve the issue so it doesn't continue for another month. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rave92 reported by Nikola Smolenski (Result: 24h each)

• Page: Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Rave92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Apparently also broke 3RR on Oj, svijetla majska zoro by editing anonymously (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92). Nikola (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at this, and the song, and its plain you are both edit warring. On the song, neither of you has even pretended to discuss things on the talk page. So you both get a block. You should know better William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

90.201.141.210 reported by Elizabeth Bathory (Result: 24 hours )

• Page: Eric Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 90.201.141.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

This is us reverting him.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

And his 7th revert, yet to be reverted by us.

• 7th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This same user has previously been blocked for long periods of time for edit warring, showing no regard to other editors. 90.201.141.202, 90.199.99.144, 90.201.141.112, 90.199.99.31 etc is him too. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 13:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NeutralityForever reported by LK (Result: 31 hours )

• Page: Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: NeutralityForever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

• Diff of 3RR warning after last ban:

Just 4 days ago, User IP 99.2.224.110 was banned 48 hours for breaking 3RR. (Case and result here). User apparently registered an account NeutralityForever, and has been editing under that account. User has just broken 3RR again, and did so using an IP edit, apparently to avoid 3RR. I have warned the user about not creating the appearence of multiple users by using anonymous IP edits, and may also file a suspected sockpuppet case against the user if he/she continues to use anonymous IPs together with the registered account. LK (talk) 15:08,

31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours I am going to give him one last chance, if he continues to sock to engage in edit warring NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) will be indef blocked and a SPI case filed. Tiptoety 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )

• Page: Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning: —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Lawrencekhoo have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours

NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• No violation Tiptoety 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LK reported by User:NeutralityForever (Result: No vio )

• Page: Wage slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: User-multi error: "LK" is not a valid project or language code (help).

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User has made huge deletions to the test, refusing to discuss and analyze contents of what he wants deleted in discussion page. Both him and Skipsievert have reverted edits 3 times in less than 24 hours NeutralityForever (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• No violation Tiptoety 03:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

YesOn8 reported by Irn (Result: 24 hour)

• Page: Violence against women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: YesOn8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3th revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Blocked by C.Fred, but he should be unblocked and reblocked in the name of an uninvolved admin, so he can't say . Erik9 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed this block and declined the request for unblock by YesOn8.--VS 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots reported by Theserialcomma (Result: 24 hours for NPA)

• Page: Glock pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• first attempt to add 'perceived recoil' without a source
• first revert, after being asked to WP:PROVEIT on his talk page
• second revert, still wont provide a source
• 3rd revert, still refuses to provide a source, says it's not necessary

see ANI thread http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#edit_warring.2C_and_indirect_language_used_to_make_blatant_personal_attacks_and_uncivil_remarks where he refuses to add a source but will edit war to include it, and his talk page, where he also refuses to add a source. consensus on ANI is that he should add a source and stop edit warring. He is still edit warring and still refuses to provide a source.

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I already provided a reference. This user has been hounding and harassing me. This is the third fight he's picked with me over editing. I admitted I Was wrong the first time and he didn't back off. He questioned the source I provided that agreed with his. Now he is baiting me again by demanding a reference for every edit I make. Normally, one would fact tag and ask for a reference assuming the material is not dubious. He didn't. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Further, T...comma has already reported this to AI:N that resolved itself in his favor where I was compelled to provide a source. I DID provide a source, hoever he felt the need to re-report this on another board using the shotgun effect to try and 'get one over' on me or whatever his obsessive goals are. This isn't the first time he's 'reported me'. See this discussion: . One more thought. He also reported my reference (used to bolster and support the reference he was defending) here: . I see this 'report' as a continuance of unresolved bitterness of this editor towards me and clearly not edit warring. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interim result: Since I perceive that Nukes4Tots is the editor closer to being blocked, I've asked him to propose a resolution. Let's see if he can come up with something that could move things forward. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed, this was already solved on the other board. How many times do I have to be reported for two reversions and a source within two days? Reported, resolved, solution implemented, then he re-reports me. Do I get a "do-over" as well? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Result. That was not the conciliatory gesture I was hoping for. We expect our editors to be grownups. If you have a conflict, take it to WP:Dispute resolution. A quarrel of this intensity which has gone on so long makes the admin eager to block both parties, but Theserialcomma has reverted fewer times and has been careful in his use of language. Nukes has used a lot of four-letter words in conversations with his opponent on his own Talk page, so Nukes4tots is blocked 24 hours for personal attacks. I see that your language has previously been discussed on your own Talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. I shouldn't have to parse your usage of fucking moron to see who you are referring to and check that it's over the top. It is now. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

74.37.87.91 reported by Marty Rockatansky (Result: no vio)

• Page: Dynamite!! 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: 74.37.87.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Keeps repeatedly reverting the results format with no explanation given. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Obviously. Once upon a time you had to supply dates William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia reported by User:Grey Fox-9589 (Result: )

• Page: Alexander Litvinenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (13:40/17:53 January 31)
• 2nd revert: (12:07/14:42 February 1st)
• 3rd revert: (16:16/18:01 February 1st)
• 4th revert: (19:37/19:52 February 1st)
• 5th revert: (20:14/22:11 February 1st)

• The first revert isn't necessarily part of the 3rr, but it's where the revert warring started, the two reverts after that are self-evident. The fourth revert changed the content in something controversial, (and something that is factually incorrect too (His revert regarding Borizovsky is incorrect too since he bought the company kommersant not in 1998 but in 1999). In his final revert, admist the minor changes he removed a title called ==dissidence==, something he had also done in his first and second revert and something which me and two other users attempted to discuss on the talk page. and he did so before replying there.

• Maybe this isn't the right place but this user is also acting pretty disruptive. During the revert warring at 18:48 Russavia also posted a message on the talk page of User:Biophys he was warring with (he was previously blocked for herassing this user), saying the other user was disruptive and accusing him of a lot of other bad stuff. At the time the other user had made two reverts. On the talk page of the Litvinenko page he had also pointed out that this user doesn't WP:OWN this article which I think is exactly how he's editing. Perhaps unrelated, but he often accuses users of being disruptive even when they make good faith edits. Apparently there was more revert warring by Russavia today at a page which he's trying to get deleted. where he responded to the same User:Biophys with More disruption from Biophys - he didn't include any sources for the second paragraph - i'm getting sick of the WP:TEND editing by this pov-pusher

• Diff of 3RR warning: This user is well-aware of the 3 revert rule which he has broken several times before. I've reported him once before as well, and wasn't sure if I should do the same thing again, because last time it caused a lot of emotions. I'm still doing it because it's unfair, since I'm now not allowed to revert his actions back when I disagree with them as this can get me blocked too. I've also seen people getting blocked for just edit warring when they hadn't broken 3rr. I embrace such policies because it's not pleasant discussing issues like that. Grey Fox (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Edit warring by Russavia in another article today, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia. He also made a 3RR violation there:
• initial version (his old revert)
• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert - note his deletion of Chechenpress reference to Mikhail Trepashkin (М. Трепашкин: «Создана очень серьезная группа)
• 4th revert, a massive deletion of sourced and relevant text.

P.S. I made two series of edits in Litvinenko today, and none of them was revert. Biophys (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Edit warring by Russavia in third article today, Vladimir Glebov:
• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert. He removes text with supporing external link. He nominated this article for deletion and works hard to "prove" that subject was not notable.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy to take whatever punishment is given out to me, and thank again guys for not again advising me of this. First to deal with Biophys' "evidence". Those revision were removing WP:BLP that Biophys and Martintg re-inserted into the article, unless of course it is totally ok to accuse people of war crimes without a single reference:

A few days after receiving the medal, Glebov was accused of committing war crimes by targeting the Chechen civilian population while leading a Russian Airborne Troops unit (119th Airborne Regiment). The prosecution claimed that Glebov shot dozens of unarmed Chechen men during an unsanctioned military operation in Grozny, and then placed weapons near their bodies in order to fabricate a victory. The case was eventually shelved and Glebov was allowed to retire.

Where exactly is the source for this? At least when Biophys tried to present the accusation that Putin was a paedophile in an article as fact he used a reference (to a fringe, terrorist website). Both Biophys and Martintg have re-inserted unreferenced WP:BLP into the article, where's the punishment for them? I bet there will be NONE AS USUAL (William Connelly, you reading this?).

The Litvinenko is not 3RR, it is called article improvement. The first link is improvement. Revert 1 and 2----just because Biophys engages in WP:TEDIOUS editing by insisting that I discuss my edits for inclusion, well I got news for him. WP:TEDIOUS states:

There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

The Arbcom which this is linked to is at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. This basically says that Biophys has been disruptive. Misplaced Pages is not a debating society, nor is it a place to engage in advocacy. So he can claim he has only done two reverts, but his reverts are clearly disruptive as per that arbcom decision.

Revert 3 is again more article improvement, rewording and fixing of sources, etc. Revert 4, is well changing a sentence structure, and well, removing whitespace, fixing wikicode, etc (you know all those menial tasks that most usually shy away from).

In regards to Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union is not Russia (as much as Biophys likes to portray). We have Allegations of state terrorism by the Soviet Union in which Soviet-era allegations are separation in order to keep NPOV (we don't include Ukraine, Estonia, Moldova, etc in this articles so we?). It appears Hmains was unaware that the other article existed, hence he reverted. Unfortunately yes, I did breach 3RR, as did Hmains, and unfortunately, it is not possible for me to revert my 3RR as Hmains has been able to do. It appears this is a result of a misunderstanding, and it can be discussed like adults and without disruption from people such as Biophys.

Anyway, this will all likely fall on deaf ears too, so just block me, give everyone else a free pass and be done with it, as per is usually done around here. And of course, it doesn't matter that I'm not editing those articles at the moment due to myself writing up evidence for WP:AE for the issues such as I mentioned above. Russavia 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• As an extra datapoint, here we have an uninvolved admin expressing concern about Russavia's nationalistic edits lately, particularly the articles Allegations of state terrorism by Russia and Vladimir Glebov for which he has been reported here. Martintg (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• This editor has also been edit warring in the article on The Economist: and . I think that a block would be in order. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with regard to The Economist, regardless of my previous disagreements with Russavia. He made just two reverts, and note that his piece was sourced. We could argue on talk, whether this section needs curtailing, but it definitely deserves inclusion. I'd acquit Russavia of that charge. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • True, and he made 3 reverts on The economist actually. 3rr clearly states The rule applies per page; reverts spread across multiple pages so that an editor does not revert a single page more than three times do not violate the rule (but may indicate disruptive editing). I'm pretty sure this is the case. The way Russavia replied here is pretty much how he usually replies, apparently we've broken loads of rules systemetically, and therefore he is allowed to behave like this. Any good faith edit he does not like is the breaking of a rule according to him. He will type up giant paragraphs in which he accuses users of a lot of bad things and also recalls disputes from a long time ago that have nothing to do with the actual dispute, such as an apparent quote about "paedophilia" from a year ago. I understand people do not enjoy arguing with this guy 24 hours a day.

As for the reverts for the Litvinenko not being reverts, I don't think you get the defenition of WP:Revert Russavia. In the first revert you edited a lot of stuff written by other users, so that's undoubtly a revert. The 2nd and 3rd revert are not justified because Biophys broke a rule; he didn't, I agreed with his edits since you typed up a lot of material that was obviously non-neutral. The revert after that was also a clear revert Russavia, you replaced information about berezeovskiy with something that's not true. I could go on, but it's no use. No matter how obvious it is that you've done wrong, you will never see it this way yourself. Grey Fox (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL? Are you f'ing kidding me? Show me just what was not neutral? What exactly is NOT NEUTRAL about this:

Livtinenko met Boris Berezovsky in 1994 when he took part in investigations into an assassination attempt on the oligarch. He later began to moonlight for Berezovsky where he was responsible for the oligarch's security. The moonlighting by Litvinenko and other security services personnel was illegal, but the State somewhat tolerated it in order to retain personnel who were at the time underpaid. In 1997, Litvinenko was promoted to the FSB Directorate of Analysis and Suppression of Criminal Groups, with the title of senior operational officer and deputy head of the Seventh Section. According to Dimitri Simes, the Directorate was viewed as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement. Litvinenko's moonlighting for the controversial businessman was not investigated, but often investigations in Russia were selective and often targetted only at those who had stepped out of line. Throughout his career he was not an 'intelligence agent' and did not deal with secrets beyond information on operations against organised criminal groups.

Everything I write is sourced to a reliable source, in this case a scholarly source, and you too are claiming it is not neutral? The problem that Biophys and you have is that it tells in a neutral way that he was moonlighting for Berezovsky, that the moonlighting was illegal (yet overlooked by the govt), and that his unit was regarded as much as a part of organised crime as it was of law enforcement (I do find it somewhat funny that people such as Biophys like to portray Russia as a corrupt, police state, yet don't like this information in this article? Why the hell is that? It's not accusing the person of being corrupt, mind you). Your words about me inserting false information about Berezovsky, I believe you are referring to the statement "in the newspaper that he owned at the time"? This was an error on my part, as there is also information to be included on their appearance on ORT, which is what was owned by Berezovsky at the time. That does not excuse the massive revert of relevant, sourced information presented in an NPOV fashion, however. --Russavia 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother discuss all that here Russavia, you should have discussed this at the talk page instead of the edit warring. There are a lot of concerns with the way you are trying to portray this man's biography, but I'm not going to raise them here. Grey Fox (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Normally I would agree, but it is part of a wider pattern of nationalist POV pushing and general incivility. Any attempts to rationally discuss content issues are met with rant of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. Martintg (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Nationalist POV pushing? What a laugh. I am Australian, as are you Martintg. You have never tried discussing a damned thing with myself, and the only time you have ever had a thing to say on my talk page, it was basically you telling me that you were going to create Putin-Dobby. So, Mr Putinland do not accuse me of being a nationalist POV pusher, and don't forget to tell these fine folk that you are also stalking my edits. --Russavia 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Nick-D, as I said on your talk page, you removed sourced material from an article. If you think it is too much, then fine, edit it, and reduce it. As another editor ended up doing (which was then removed as trivia (b/s). Regardless of we think, we write about what sources tell us, and the opinion of a "western" journalist who was based in Russia on a "western" magazine's reporting in Russia, is notable to some degree. Also note the inclusion of the example of The Economist's reporting of the Irish famine, that too is quite notable as one can see here which states "A month later, which another season of starvation looming, The Economist, peering down from the heights of ideological purity, condemned was it regarded as the disastrous result of the Government's intervention in the Irish economy" and "The Economist, the The Times", normalised the horror of the Famine, and, by doing so, erased it. Ideologically inspired propaganda cynically ignored or denied reality". and "The most brutal, cowardly, and calumnious libels were found in the English press upon the Irish people, whose conduct ought to be lauded. There was the ruffian Times, and then The Economist, the free trader...but all these papers had levelled their brutalities at the people of Ireland. The Economist had basely charged the Irish people with flinging themselves like slaves upon the bounty of the English - without energy or exertion...these outrageous attacks upon the people were evidence that nothing would be done effectively for the relief of Irish distress...". That is from a book entitled "Daniel O'Connell, the British Press, and the Irish Famine". This too is all notable opinion which deserves a place in the article. But you chose to delete the entire lot, without discussion, and my IP stalker and others have decided to game the system by arguing to exlude ALL Russian sources from this article too, thereby arguing to exclude any notion of any "Russian POV" from WP, unless of course it agreed with their own POV. Be damned with that rubbish. --Russavia 14:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"I'm Australian", that doesnt matter Russavia. You've been told recently by an admin too. You not being ethnically Russian is not an excuse to behave like that. Grey Fox (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And that admin is at least going to hear my side of things. So Grey-Fox, where is the scorn for Martintg's stalking of my edits and general harrassment? Do I do this to you guys? Not on your life mister. --Russavia 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Martintg Russavia, I have not interacted with him. Have you tried asking him on his userpage? I don't stalk you that I know. In many of the articles you and I edit, I was active long before you was. You're 68th on the List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits, it's no surprise that you encounter many of the same users everywhere, especially since most of your editing is about glorifying the Russian government. Grey Fox (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what Grey-Fox...perhaps if we didn't have articles stating Putin is a paedophile, I wouldn't need to "glorify the Russian government". It's got nothing to do with glorifying anybody or anything. It has to do with providing a multitude of views with conform with NPOV. Until such time as articles are NPOV, and cover all major views, then I will continue to participate in this project. Of course, if you really want to get rid of me, then I would encourage people of writing articles from a NPOV stance in the first place, instead of simply "dishing the dirt". --Russavia 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is there has never been such an article, it's all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All in my head? "Among those who knew about Putin's paedophilia...", does that ring any bells with you? Not only does it state a matter of fact, but it also claims others know. --Russavia 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, do you remember what happened when I reworded the above in order to make it clear it was an accusation, and also added information from other sources on this claim, which called it "wild" and "unsubstantiated"? I do, a "compromise version" version was made, in which all material which I added was removed, and the claim was re-presented as fact as above. Do you remember what happened then? I do, there was gaming of the system going on, in which I was blocked and the editor who re-inserted these statements of fact got off scott-free, and the blocking admins totally ignored any report of BLP, and refused to even look at it. Want to guess who did that "compromise version"? They do these "compromise versions" a lot where they remove ALL edits by other editors in a sign of ownership of articles and revert back to their own desired version. And I am the one being accused of POV-pusing....go figure. --Russavia 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia the reason why nobody else was blocked was because there was no BLP violation. The quote above was placed in quote itself, so that they only showed the words of Litvinenko, and not a statement of fact. You made the entire BLP violation thing up, and it seems that after 4 months you still haven't gotten over it, because you've been alleging this constantly in unrelated discussions. Yes it was indeed all in your head. Grey Fox (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Most of that was irrelevant. The only relevant question: can a user violate 3RR rule simultaneously in two articles, conduct edit waring in several others, and believe that he was right and everyone else was wrong. If this is fine, no block or other actions (such as placing him to Digwuren list) would be required.Biophys (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• Since Biophys, Grey Fox and Martintg appear to be working in concert to get Russavia blocked, I'd like to point out, that in my view these three users have a strong history of tendentious editing, and share an (unusually strong) agenda in WP. They have also themselves been involved in edit warring and (at least near-) violations of 3RR. As far as I can see, most of the "controversial" edits by Russavia are merely attempts to fix the unbalance created by the trio's edits. I think that any admin making a decision should take into account the behaviour of the three users mentioned. Every editor should be treated equally. Offliner (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've actually never really interacted with Martintg before, you're just making stuff up because you seem to have the same agenda as Russavia, judging from this and your behaviour at various Russian related articles. Grey Fox (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of lords420 reported by EdGl (Result:no block)

• Page: MxPx discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Lord of lords420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

This user blanks the charts in the article, as shown with the diff links I provided. User is repeatedly warned to stop on his talk page but the user continues to revert to his edits without explanation or discussion. ~EdGl (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the warning about 3RR was after the most recent revert, no block for now. If he resumes, leave an update on this noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ydnar12 reported by Plastikspork (Result: )

• Page: I Love Money (Season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Ydnar12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (removed white font)
• 2nd revert: (removed white font)
• 3rd revert: (removed white font)
• 4th revert: (may or may not be same user, but same edit)

• Diff of 3RR warning:

Note that I too am most likely guilty of 3RR in this particular case. There are two pages on which this revert-war is on going, I Love Money (Season 1) and I Love Money (Season 2), and I didn't realize until my last edit that I had committed more than two reverts on the same page. One can look at the edit history of the other page and see a similar revert pattern, but I decided to let it go on the other page. I had started a discussion, with my arguments on the talk pages of both articles. I plan to stop editing either of these pages until this issue is resolved. Sorry for not bringing this for arbitration earlier. Thank you! Plastikspork (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Kyle1278 reported by Blubberboy92 (Result:no vio)

• Page: Super Bowl XLIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Kyle1278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

• Diff of 3RR warning:

User repeatedly removes information. Has stated on talk page that he will not quit. That's pretty much it. Jason (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree i most likely am guilty of the 3RR i was just doing what i thought was right i was not intending any vandalism. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, there have to be four reverts, not three, for a 3RR vio. So how about if I leave you and anyone else who may need it with an injunction to just not edit war, please. Discuss articles, come to consensus, pursue dispute resolution, all that good stuff. Can we do that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deucalionite reported by Fut.Perf (Result: )

• Page: Bryges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Deucalionite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 29 January, 17:06
• 1 February, 22:23
• 2 February, 07:09
• 2 February, 07:15
• 2 February, 07:22
• Earlier edit-warring: ,

No warning necessary, experienced user with multiple previous 3RR blocks. Already two 3RR blocks in January 2009. Please block for longer period. Consider wider sanctions under WP:ARBMAC.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No cohones to block the guy yourself Fut. Perf? You're getting a bit soft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.191.46 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Future, get real. You provided zero reasons for your reverts on the Bryges article. Also, my edits contained secondary sources all adhering to WP:RS. User:Jingiby caused a little dissonance, but I smoothed things out with him on the talk page. Ultimately, you love to use me as a scapegoat. Meh, standard procedure. Deucalionite (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring